How Should We Be Baptized? (Article)

How Should We Be Baptized?

Many contend that “baptism in the name of Jesus” means only in the authority and power of Jesus, and it does not mean the name Jesus should be uttered orally, or actually spoken, as part of the baptismal formula. However, the following evidence shows that “in the name of Jesus” is the actual formula we are to employ:

1. Baptism in the name of Jesus does mean baptism with His power and authority, absolutely! But the way to invoke His power and authority is to invoke (actually speak) His name in faith. The authority represented by a name is always invoked by actually and specifically and purposely using the proper name. All the discussion of power and authority cannot obscure the main point, and that is when we actually use a name at baptism, it should be the name Jesus.

2. The Bible reveals that the name Jesus was orally invoked at baptism. Acts 22:16 says, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Here is a biblical command to call the Lord’s name (Jesus) at baptism. Some argue that in this verse, only the person being baptized called out the name of Jesus, not person performing the baptism. This is debatable, but even so, either way, the name Jesus was orally invoked. In general, the baptizer customarily invokes the name, but the candidate may also call on the name of Jesus as well, for baptism’s validity depends on the person’s faith who is being baptized, not on the baptizer’s faith. Further, there was an oral speaking of the name of Jesus. The Greek word “calling” is epikaleomai (ep-ee-kaleh-oh-my), which means “to call over or “to invoke.” It’s important to compare this to the same word that describes Stephen’s oral prayer to God in Acts 7:59: “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” The same verb also appears in Acts 15:17: “the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord,” and in James 2:7: “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?” Both of these latter two passages definitively tell us there was a specific time when the name of Jesus was invoked over believers, which occurred at water baptism. If you look at other translations of James 2:7, you will find this: “[Do] not they blaspheme the good name called on you?” (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament); “Do not they defame the noble name which hath been invoked upon you?” (Rotherham); “Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [The name of Christ invoked in baptism]?” (TAB). In conclusion, the Bible states in one verse and indicates in several others that the name of Jesus is to be orally invoked at baptism.

3. Let’s be frank here – the passages in Acts are examples of clear and plain language. Common-sense reading of the baptismal passages leads one to believe that “in the name of Jesus” is the baptismal formula. That is the natural, literal reading, and someone who denies that the name of Jesus was used during baptism must resort to introducing other ideas to make implication otherwise. The words mean what they appear to mean. If this is not a formula, it is strange that it appears so many times as if it were a formula without any explanation to the contrary.

4. In other Biblical accounts, “in the name of Jesus” meant orally uttering the name Jesus. Jesus told His disciples they would pray for the sick in His name (Mark 16:17-18), and James said we should pray for the sick “in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). When Peter prayed for a lame man, he actually spoke the name – Luke quoted Peter directly in Acts 3:6, stating that Peter said: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” Then Luke explained that the man was healed “by the name of Jesus” (Acts 3:16; 4:10). In other words, when the Early Church prayed for the sick in the name of Jesus, they actually used/spoke/uttered the name Jesus. Likewise, when the Early Church baptized in the name of Jesus, they actually spoke the name Jesus as part of the baptismal formula.

5. If “in the name of Jesus” does not represent a formula, then the Bible gives no formula for Christian baptism. The only other instance someone can point to for instruction for the church for a baptismal formula would be the wording of Matthew 28:19. However, if “in the name of Jesus” does not teach a formula, then neither does “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The grammatical structure is identical in both verses. If “in the name” means “by the authority of” without literally invoking a name, then neither verse gives a formula. The Bible clearly teaches us that water baptism is essential for salvation, part of the Christian initiation experience. To assume that we were not given specific guidance by God on the formula for water baptism should cause anyone serious about their salvation to consider these words. If you assume the Bible does not give a specific formula, what distinguishes the Christian baptism from the myriad of heathen baptisms, Jewish proselyte baptism, or John’s baptism? If there was no formula given, or worse yet, if you subscribe to the type of thinking that the formula doesn’t matter, why did Paul REBAPTIZE John’s disciples in the name of Jesus in Acts 22? I would challenge anyone to find a reputable Biblical scholar who holds that a baptismal formula is irrelevant, or that the Bible gives us no specific direction regarding a baptismal formula. But, if you conclude that “in the name of” does not describe our Baptismal formula, then the Bible does not give us one.

6. Theologians and church historians indeed recognize the Book of Acts gives us a baptismal formula numerous times (confirming repeatedly the formula “in the name of Jesus,” or the “Lord Jesus,” and that water baptism is an essential part of the Christian initiation experience). The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says: “The formula used was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ or some synonymous phrase: there is no evidence for the use of the trine name.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “The evidence of Acts, supported by Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3, suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the three-fold name, but ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ “

7. What about Matthew 28:19, you say. This verse a majority of mainstream Christianity holds on to as proof that we are to baptize in a three-fold method: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” So, how do we reconcile this verse with all the later references to baptism in the name of Jesus, such as Acts 2:38? There are several views one could take:

1. 1. The first one would be to contend that Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 contradict each other – therefore concluding one is correct and one is incorrect. However, because God’s plan of salvation in the New Testament church age is the same for all people, there cannot be two contradictory baptismal formulas. Since the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, it does not contradict itself. Matthew recorded Matthew 28:19 and also stood with Peter when he preached at Pentecost (Acts 2:14). The question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” was addressed to all the apostles (Acts 2:37). If Peter had given an incorrect answer, Matthew should have corrected him. If you are the type of person who has been studying this and has decided that it would be better to obey the words of Jesus over Peter, you must realize that Peter heard Jesus speak in Matthew 28:19, that Matthew heard Peter speak in Acts 2:38, and that only seven to ten days separated the two events. If Acts 2:38 contradicts Matthew 28:19, then the first spokesman of the church (Peter) was in doctrinal error, the other apostles (including Matthew) followed him in error, and we cannot trust anything the apostles preached or recorded. If that be the case, we might as well discard all the teachings of the New Testament.

1. 2. A second solution would be to say that Matthew 28:19 describes a formula while Acts 2:38 does not, or vice versa. This is unsatisfactory because the same words “in the name of” appear in both verses. If one does not describe a formula, neither does the other. As we’ve already discussed at length, there are many reasons why Acts 2:38 does indeed describe a formula.

1. 3. A third approach would be that neither Matthew 28:19 nor Acts 2:38 describes a formula, leaving us without any formula at all. You would have to admit, however, that this is very unlikely in light of the importance of baptism. As noted, there has to be a need to distinguish Christian baptism from all of the other types of baptism.

1. 4. Logically, if we discard the first three approaches, then we are only left with one remaining possibility – and that is Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 both describe the same baptismal formula. Ideally this is true because then it we have clear instruction on how to baptize, and it means we have scripture interpreting scripture, and we preserve the Biblical principle that the Word of God is inerrant, infallible, and not contradictory. Another Biblical principle is that truth must be established by more than one witness (2 Corinthians 13:1). Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the Bible to use the baptismal phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” while many verses reiterate the baptismal phrase in Acts 2:38, “in the name of Jesus Christ.” I would submit that we can logically conclude Matthew 28:19 is the more indirect passage that we should harmonize and interpret with the many other accounts the Bible provides us.

The fact also remains, Matthew 28:19 uses the word “name” – singular. It does not say “baptize in the names of the Father, and of the Son, of the Holy Spirit.” So, I would submit also that we can only take this scripture in one of two ways: 1) Either Matthew was referring to baptizing in the authority of and it is not a specific formula, which would mean that Acts 2:38 is also not a formula and also implies authority – and then we have no baptismal formula; or 2) Matthew’s words were referring to that one singular name that we are taught countless times throughout scripture actually saves us. That is the name of Jesus.

The apostles understood what Jesus was saying, and that is confirmed by how they were obedient to Him in Luke’s accounts in the Book of Acts. Why shouldn’t we understand and obey it? We are told Jesus is the name that is above every name. Wouldn’t it make sense the most highly exalted name is the one that we would use? I’ll leave you with this – Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

This series of short articles discusses my view on the oneness of the creator of the heavens and our enclosed plane earth. I do not claim to have the fullest revelation of God. This is my opinion only. For a longer explanation of what I feel strongly the Bible is teaching us, please see “Part 0 – What I Believe” the link is in this video’s description.